Smokers Penalty Fee At Work?

[sailorman]

Hmmm. What everyone else said about group policies yeah. My company is huge, I believe the largest single site employer in the SE USA, and we all pay the same for insurance. Well, we have 5 plans to choose from based on our needs. But each plan costs the same for each person. What happens, every year if you take a personal health assessment, have a good BP level, and a BMI in range, you get a $100 bonus for each. My BMI ad PHA were good. Just squeaked in on the BP. Hoping that starts to go down now that I'm vaping.

That makes sense because what's happening is that your underwriter is rating your company by experience. If they have an abnormally low number of claims, they get a rebate on their premiums. If they have too many claims, they get a premium hike bigger than the one they get every single year anyway.

That's what group underwriting is all about. But, you cannot assess extra premium charges to a single individual or a group of individuals than merely share a behavior that is assumed to increase the amount of claims. If you have 10 people who all get cancer and cost the insurance company a million dollars in claims one year, the employer can't try to recoup the next year's premium increase from those 10 people, or them plus 20 more who he thinks might also be getting cancer because of some behavior they share.

 

[sailorman]

In that situation at least you can say that you are saving still alot a money by vaping (-$15 to -$50 fee) per month versus smoking, and the fact that you will likely prolong you life. If the job and money is better than rebelling and finding another job then I say just deal with it. Hell I may find more income overall if I drive an hour more per day, but it may cost me more in the end.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Yeah, and some people put a price tag on their dignity, and some don't.

 

[HawkeyeFLA]

That makes sense because what's happening is that your underwriter is rating your company by experience. If they have an abnormally low number of claims, they get a rebate on their premiums. If they have too many claims, they get a premium hike bigger than the one they get every single year anyway.

That's what group underwriting is all about. But, you cannot assess extra premium charges to a single individual or a group of individuals than merely share a behavior that is assumed to increase the amount of claims. If you have 10 people who all get cancer and cost the insurance company a million dollars in claims one year, the employer can't try to reocoup the next year's premium increase from those 10 people.

I always figured some of it was a rebate from the provider, but up to $300 per person per year? I'm sure the company itself is kicking some of it into the pool, since the VAST majority of us qualify for at least some of it every year. Heck, to get the first $100, you just have to take the PHA and have a bio-metric screening done. And they contract with a local lab to have testing days setup. Doesn't matter what the results of your bio-metric is, you get the $100 for doing it. Next $100 for BMI in the "healthy range." I won't get into BMI debates here And the last $100 for BP under xx/yyy. I forget the exact numbers, but in the low healthy range. It's easily the easiest $300 I get every year. Upwards of 65,000 employees in FL. Even if only half qualify for the full $300, that's a healthy chunk of change. But I'm sure the ROI is there since we're not costing them as much since we're not always at the hospital. In the 5.5 years I've been here, I've used my health insurance maybe 4 times (Not counting chiro visits)

 

[jshat]

No point in running this by a lawyer in the US a private company has all rights to do this as smokers are not considered a protected group. Companies can fire smokers or simply not hire them at their own discretion. It sucks but not too much you can do about it. As far as getting around it you could try to claim you're on the patch or gum and hope they won't charge you for quiting. Also if they don't smell smoke on you they may have no reason for a test.

It's not a matter of employer rights, or the lack of smoker rights, or even the lack of employee rights. The issue is what health insurance companies are allowed to do in the context of group health insurance.

The last I heard, insurance was still a regulated industry, due to the tremendous potential for abuse. I have no doubt that, at least in some states, an employer is allowed to fine you for smoking or drinking or sleeping around too much. That's the neo-feudalistic society we've allowed ourselves to fall into. But what an employer can do to HIS serfs is different than what an insurance company can do to them. At least it used to be. Maybe we've descended further down the crapper than even I had realized.

Yes an employer is allowed to charge for this. And no we're not serfs. The reasoning is if you don't like a private companies rules you are free to find another one. It's fairly simple really, don't like it don't work there. This pretty much only applies to smokers so your negative view is quite off... Though some companies may be looking for a way to ban "overly large" people like myself lol. There is a big difference in charging someone for their "drug" use and charging someone for their race creed or color. Protected groups are immune and others will need to leave or accept. It hasn't fallen this low it's always been this way. Private =! Federal

 

[beamrider]

What does race creed or color have to do with nicotine use or being overweight?

 

[wseyller]

Yeah, and some people put a price tag on their dignity, and some don't.

Yep, I agree. At times I have been in that dilemma choosing whether to defy my dignity. I think it depends on the circumstances and you have to smart about it. In this ecomony many don't have the luxary to uphold their dignity when it comes to income that pays their bills. Sometimes your dignity can become your own demise.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[jshat]

It's the only things an insurance company can't charge extra for. It's the only things private companies can't take into consideration for stupid rules. Short of those anything goes.

 

[sailorman]

Yes an employer is allowed to charge for this. And no we're not serfs. The reasoning is if you don't like a private companies rules you are free to find another one. It's fairly simple really, don't like it don't work there. This pretty much only applies to smokers so your negative view is quite off... Though some companies may be looking for a way to ban "overly large" people like myself lol. There is a big difference in charging someone for their "drug" use and charging someone for their race creed or color. Protected groups are immune and others will need to leave or accept. It hasn't fallen this low it's always been this way. Private =! Federal

No. It hasn't "always been this way". Maybe in your lifetime it's "always been this way". Some of us remember when private companies had a certain responsibility to treat their employees better than they'd be expected to treat their draft animals.

And there is absolutely no difference between charging someone for their nicotine use and charging someone for being a fat slob. The point is, neither were acceptable before the Divine Right of Capital took precedence over all other considerations in this society.

Granted, an employer is free to abuse his employees in a more varied number of ways than a health insurance company is. But there are limits. If a company just fined smokers because they were smokers, or ugly people because they were ugly, it would be within its legal rights. If it became a trend, and standard practice, then we would indeed be serfs because when a practice becomes so widespread that you don't have a choice to "just find another one", you are no longer free.
But, for now anyway, an employer doesn't have the right to defraud you by claiming that it's the insurance company who is imposing this burden upon you.

So, yeah. It's fallen this low. Fat people will be next. Don't like it, don't work there. When it's accepted practice everywhere, don't work anywhere. Shape up or ship out, serf. There's a million more just like you.

 

[beamrider]

Amazingly enough, alcoholics don't get charged extra, do they? Dangerously overweight people don't get charged extra, do they? People who live on nothing but Ding Dongs and potato chips don't get charged.. And yet, I'd lay money that they cost a company just as much as a nicotine user. Perhaps not directly linkable to increased insurance costs, but lost time at work, etc.

And as a country, we'll just sit back and take it. Because most people cannot afford to lose a job over something like this. Maybe someday, tho, vapers will be in a different category from smokers, but I doubt we'll ever see that here in the good ole U S of A.........

 

[sailorman]

Yep, I agree. At times I have been in that dilemma choosing whether to defy my dignity. I think it depends on the circumstances and you have to smart about it. In this ecomony many don't have the luxary to uphold their dignity when it comes to income that pays their bills. Sometimes your dignity can become your own demise.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Yes, that's right. And when the majority of people can't afford to uphold their dignity, and a majority of people are so desperate for work they'll put up with anything, that's not a free society. That's mass servitude. That's feudalism. Except in real feudalism, the Lord had a responsibility for the well-being of his serfs. Feudal Lords would be embarrassed by today's feudalism.

 

[jshat]

The sky is falling and for some people it always will be. Believe what you want and I shall do the same. Good luck to you and your endeavours I fully support them. I just don't agree it's as bad as you believe it is.

 

[sailorman]

Amazingly enough, alcoholics don't get charged extra, do they? Dangerously overweight people don't get charged extra, do they? People who live on nothing but Ding Dongs and potato chips don't get charged.. And yet, I'd lay money that they cost a company just as much as a nicotine user. Perhaps not directly linkable to increased insurance costs, but lost time at work, etc.

And as a country, we'll just sit back and take it. Because most people cannot afford to lose a job over something like this. Maybe someday, tho, vapers will be in a different category from smokers, but I doubt we'll ever see that here in the good ole U S of A.........

This attitude among employers, that their employees were property, that if you don't like it then just find another job, was what started the whole bloody war for workers' rights 100 years ago. Back then, the only thing you could be sure of is that you'd be treated just as shabbily in one workplace as the next.

This is the new Gilded age and, for some strange reason, Americans are incapable of learning from their own history. They somehow think that employers have magically evolved a social conscience and just voluntarily treat people with decency and dignity. The truth is, at their core, they're no different now than they were in 1890. Only the force of law compels them to treat employees any better than they did back then.

I'll tell you one thing for certain, you would NEVER see this kind of thing happening in a union shop. Say what you will about unions but this is the kind of stuff they were created for in the first place and an employer in a union shop wouldn't even dream of abusing employees in this way. I get all ROFLMAO when I hear people say dumb things like "unions had a purpose, but we don't need them anymore". Truth is that, at their core, there's not a dime's worth of difference between an employer of 1890 and one of today.

 

[sailorman]

The sky is falling and for some people it always will be. Believe what you want and I shall do the same. Good luck to you and your endeavours I fully support them. I just don't agree it's as bad as you believe it is.

See, the difference between you and me is that I lived it. I don't need to believe anything. I know for a stone fact that it's as bad as it is because I knew a time when it wasn't this bad. I'm saying the sky is falling because I remember when the sky was thousands of feet above my head. Now, it's around my shoulders and you never saw it any higher than 7 feet. I don't need to believe it's falling. I've watched it fall. You need to believe it wasn't always like this. It wasn't always 7 feet above the ground.

 

[wseyller]

Not sure when fat people will be subjected to a similair situation. Obesity is the second leading cause of death in the US the last a looked. Only thing stopping that is corporations like McDonald, Coke, Pepsi, and others that distribute candy bars, etc that have lobbyists that fill the pockets of lawmakers to make sure these unhealthy foods flood our country.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[sailorman]

They don't need to fine you for being fat. They just avoid hiring you in the first place. Fat discrimination is AOK in America. So is age discrimination, as long as you make up some other excuse.

Since the Citizens United case, the money is flooding in like never before. We don't have a representative government any more. It's nothing but a big auction. You can expect things to get much, much worse for 99% of America who can't afford to buy a Senator or a Presidential candidate of our own. When single individuals give 8 figure campaign contributions, it's an investment you or I can't make and, believe me, it's a very lucrative investment indeed.

 

[regulater2.0]

Depending on the state where you live, that may not be legal. Insurance companies ask you about smoking but you dont have to do anything crazy like this. See if your rights are being violated.

 

[beamrider]

The sky is falling and for some people it always will be. Believe what you want and I shall do the same. Good luck to you and your endeavours I fully support them. I just don't agree it's as bad as you believe it is.

And that's the type of attitude that is partly responsible for the country being in the shape it is currently in. Most times, the more you don't think that your rights are being violated, the more suprised you are when you find out that you don't HAVE those rights anymore. If you can't stand up for your rights NOW, when they are being trod on just a little, it's that much easier for the gov't to take them away from you completely, 6 months from now. This is in no way a personal attack on you, you might be right, and some of us are overreacting to the situation. I hope you're right.

 

[Miira]

The "smokers cost more" argument has long been debunked. They just pick on smokers, because smoking has been demonized to hysterical levels.

Actually, a long, healthy life costs more - Health - Diet and nutrition - msnbc.com

 

[FogMatic]

If you didn't live in a state suffering from a fascist government, I'd say sue his brains out. But, I'm sure your Governor has seen to it that your employer has free rein to treat you like the feudal serf he envisions you to be.

...sad, but true.

 

[sailorman]

The "smokers cost more" argument has long been debunked. They just pick on smokers, because smoking has been demonized to hysterical levels.

Actually, a long, healthy life costs more - Health - Diet and nutrition - msnbc.com

That's not a sound argument. The majority of the non-smoker's health care expenses are incurred late in life, after the insurance companies have already dumped you off on the government. Between the ages of 25 and 65, smokers DO incur more health care costs and that's the time period insurance companies care about. They don't give a rat's how much it costs after you're on Medicare. After 65, they wouldn't touch you with a 10 foot pole whether you were a smoker or not. And the HMO scams known as Medicare advantage programs don't count because they are 100% risk free corporate welfare for the ins. companies.

How do you think the 65 eligibility age for Medicare was set? Hint: The gov't. didn't roll a dice. The ins. companies know exactly when the fruit is best for picking and they've always had plenty of water boys in the government.